Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial[W:292]

This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

I know...emptying all those rounds into a vehicle with living humans into it and not reporting it? Not wondering if you killed anyone? Going and eating dinner (really, to comfort the gf who wasn't even in the vehicle?) I thought she didn't even know the extent of the exchange?

When getting a permit for a gun, they should ask you a simple question.

If you discharge your weapon in the direction of another human being, do you promise to report the occurrence to the police immediately?

Yes------You may complete the application.

No------Tear up the application and go do what ever it is that thugs do.

When getting a permit for a gun, they should ask you a simple question.

If you discharge your weapon in the direction of another human being, do you promise to report the occurrence to the police immediately?

Yes------You may complete the application.

No------Tear up the application and go do what ever it is that thugs do.

Altho not always required by a state, any training I've heard of for permit holders includes ALWAYS calling 911 after a shooting. One reason for that is because the courts tend to believe the first person reporting is the innocent party. Either way, it's totally for the protection of the shooter....unless the shooter is guilty.

Originally Posted by Bucky

Welfare is a bad thing? It is essentially free money. It is not that bad.

Originally Posted by Bucky

I look at abortion the same way I do Pineapple Pizza.

Originally Posted by applejuicefool

A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

There you go speaking delusional biased nonsense again.
You are not going by the evidence at all. It is why you continually avoid discussing it after it is shown that it isn't in your opinion's favor.

Nor do you know if they disbelieved him or not.
They very well could have believed him but thought that it wasn't reasonable to use deadly force in such a situation.

Or, as you were also previously told:

We saw from the first trial one Juror who wanted to convict simply because she believed he had other options, like rolling up a window, moving to another space, etc...
That clearly is not applying the law as it is written.
If any juror who convicted him this time did so for that reason, his conviction should not stand.
The fact remains that at this time (which I keep pointing out, and you fail to grasp) we do not know why the jury decided what it did.
But what remains clear is that there is no credible evidence that contradicts his account of acting in self defense.
Nothing provided by you or anyone else, or the false claims of racism, show otherwise.
Nothing.

But nooooo, you keep going in circles because you have no valid argument.

Originally Posted by Black Dog

but you, no the evidence says he lied and is guilty.

No it doesn't. If it did you could point to it, yet can't.
But for a gun, even Davis's friends testimony supported what Dunn said.
And yet, even though pointed out multiple times, you fail to grasp that.

Originally Posted by Black Dog

I know as much about the evidence as you do.

No, you clearly don't.

Originally Posted by Black Dog

but again you want to accept his lame excuse and story above the other testimony and evidence

He has no lame excuse. He reacted out of fear, which is exactly what the evidence supports, which again, no evidence disputes. So you are again telling lies.

Originally Posted by Black Dog

Fact. All one has to do is follow this thread. You are alone in this nonsense of he was wrongly convicted.

More untrue nonsense from you.
As previously pointed out, a local Florida poll indicated roughly a 61/38 split, and as I stated: "While I may be in the minority I am not the only one."
So you are again speaking more nonsense, as others do agree, and the fact is as stated, you can not argue the evidence.

Originally Posted by Black Dog

So the bystander who has no reason to lie and was not affected by the situation at all is the one you want to discount? Sorry no amount of smileys can do a better job of showing the lunacy and absolute nonsense of your argument.

The lunacy is all yours, as you are showing your bias and a failure to look objectively at the evidence in toto of this specific instance.

Smith was a credible witness. The problem is that what he testified to was not.
He stated that he was able to hear Dunn, who was behind closed windows and facing away from him, at a specific point in time, say: "You're not going to talk to me that way".
The fact that Dunn was behind closed windows and facing away from him makes what he says questionable at it's best.
But then, Davis's friends and Dunn both say during that specific period in time, that what was said was a similar: "Are you talking to me."

Obviously Smith is mistaken.

But because of your preconceived racial bias you want to believe what Smith said is the truth. Too bad, the other and more supported evidence contradicts it.

There you go speaking delusional biased nonsense again.
You are not going by the evidence at all. It is why you continually avoid discussing it after it is shown that it isn't in your opinion's favor.

Nor do you know if they disbelieved him or not.
They very well could have believed him but thought that it wasn't reasonable to use deadly force in such a situation.

Or, as you were also previously told:

We saw from the first trial one Juror who wanted to convict simply because she believed he had other options, like rolling up a window, moving to another space, etc...
That clearly is not applying the law as it is written.
If any juror who convicted him this time did so for that reason, his conviction should not stand.
The fact remains that at this time (which I keep pointing out, and you fail to grasp) we do not know why the jury decided what it did.
But what remains clear is that there is no credible evidence that contradicts his account of acting in self defense.
Nothing provided by you or anyone else, or the false claims of racism, show otherwise.
Nothing.

But nooooo, you keep going in circles because you have no valid argument.

No it doesn't. If it did you could point to it, yet can't.
But for a gun, even Davis's friends testimony supported what Dunn said.
And yet, even though pointed out multiple times, you fail to grasp that.

No, you clearly don't.

He has no lame excuse. He reacted out of fear, which is exactly what the evidence supports, which again, no evidence disputes. So you are again telling lies.

More untrue nonsense from you.
As previously pointed out, a local Florida poll indicated roughly a 61/38 split, and as I stated: "While I may be in the minority I am not the only one."
So you are again speaking more nonsense, as others do agree, and the fact is as stated, you can not argue the evidence.

The lunacy is all yours, as you are showing your bias and a failure to look objectively at the evidence in toto of this specific instance.

Smith was a credible witness. The problem is that what he testified to was not.
He stated that he was able to hear Dunn, who was behind closed windows and facing away from him, at a specific point in time, say: "You're not going to talk to me that way".
The fact that Dunn was behind closed windows and facing away from him makes what he says questionable at it's best.
But then, Davis's friends and Dunn both say during that specific period in time, that what was said was a similar: "Are you talking to me."

Obviously Smith is mistaken.

But because of your preconceived racial bias you want to believe what Smith said is the truth. Too bad, the other and more supported evidence contradicts it.

To long so I didn't bother to read it. It's just more of the same dribble you have been repeatedly posting that no one agrees with... The media, jury, populace, 99% of DP and 99.9% of the people involved.

So with that, I will laugh at your statements some more and bid you good day.

Originally Posted by Absentglare

You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.